Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review

The Sony a6300 is the company's latest mid-range mirrorless camera. Like the a6000 it still offers 24MP resolution but the autofocus ability, video capability, build quality, viewfinder resolution and price have all been increased.

The most exciting change from our perspective is the a6300's new sensor. Although the pixel count remains the same, the a6300's sensor has a whopping 425 phase-detection AF points ranged across the sensor. The a6000 already offered one of the best AF systems in its class, when it comes to identifying and tracking subjects, so an upgrade in this area sounds extremely promising. The sensor is also built using newer fabrication processes that use copper wiring to help improve the sensor's performance and possibly contributing to the camera's slightly improved battery life.

The a6000 has been a huge success and has dominated its field to the extent that its combination of capability and price still looks impressive even as it enters the twilight of its career (Sony says it will live on, alongside the a6300*). That model represented a dip down-market for the series, with a drop in build quality and spec relative to the NEX-6 that preceded it. The a6300 corrects that course, and sees the model regain the high resolution viewfinder and magnesium-alloy build offered by the older NEX-6 (and the level gauge, which was absent from the a6000).

Key features:

24MP Exmor CMOS sensor

425 phase detection points to give '4D Focus' Hybrid AF

4K (UHD) video - 25/24p from full width, 30p from smaller crop

2.36M-dot OLED finder with 120 fps mode

Dust and moisture resistant magnesium-alloy body

Built-in Wi-Fi with NFC connection option

Built-in microphone socket

As with the previous 6-series E-mount cameras, the a6300 features a flip up/down 16:9 ratio screen. The shape of this screen hints at the 6300's intended uses: video shooting, as well as stills. The a6300's movie features have been considerably uprated. It not only shoots 4K (UHD) at 24p or 25p from its full sensor width (or 30p from a tighter crop). It also gains a mic socket, the video-focused Picture Profile system (which includes the flat S-Log2 and S-Log3 gamma curves), and the ability to record time code.

This added emphasis on video makes absolute sense, since the camera's stills performance is likely to be competitive with the best on the market but its video capabilities trounce most of its current rivals. The a6300 not only includes focus peaking and zebra stripes but, if its on-sensor phase detection works well, the ability to re-focus as you shoot with minimal risk of focus wobble and hunting, should make it easier to shoot great-looking footage.

All this makes it hard to overstate how promising the a6300 looks. A latest-generation sensor can only mean good things for the camera's image quality and an autofocus system that moves beyond the performance of one of our benchmark cameras is an enticing prospect. Add to that excellent, well-supported video specifications, a better viewfinder and weather-sealed build, and it's tempting to start planning for the camera's coronation as King of the APS-C ILCs. Perhaps with only the price tag floating over proceedings, threatening just a little rain on that particular parade.

Specifications compared:

As well as comparing the a6300 with the a6000 as its predecessor/sister model, we'll also look at what you get if you save up a bit more money and opt for full-frame, rather than APS-C. We think at least some enthusiast users will find themselves making this decision, so are highlighting the differences.

Sony a6000

Sony a6300

Sony a7 II

MSRP (Body Only)

$650

$1000

$1700

Sensor size

APS-C (23.5 x 15.6mm)

APS-C (23.5 x 15.6mm)

Full Frame (35.8 x 23.9 mm)

Pixel count

24MP

24MP

24MP

AF system

Hybrid AF (with 179 PDAF points)

Hybrid AF (with 425 PDAF points)

Hybrid AF (with 117 PDAF points)

Continuous shooting rate

11 fps

11 fps

5 fps

Screen

3" tilting 921k dot LCD

3" tilting 921k dot LCD

3" tilting 1.23m dot LCD

Viewfinder

OLED 1.44M-dot

OLED 2.36M-dot w/120 fps refresh option

OLED 2.36M-dot

Movie Resolution

1920 x 1080 / 60p

4K 3840 x 2160 / 30p, 1920 x 1080 / 120p, 60p

1920 x 1080 / 60p

Image stabilization

In-lens only

In-lens only

In-body 5-axis

Number of dials

Two

Two

Three (plus Exp Comp.)

Maximum shutter speed

1/4000 sec

1/4000 sec

1/8000 sec

Built-in flash

Yes

Yes

No

Hot shoe

Yes

Yes

Yes

Flash sync speed

1/160 sec

1/160 sec

1/250 sec

Battery life(with EVF)

360 shots (310 shots)

400 shots(350 shots)

350 shots(270 shots)

Weight (w/battery)

344 g (12.1 oz)

404 g (14.3 oz)

599 g (21.1 oz)

Dimensions

120 x 67 x 45 mm (4.7 x 2.6 x 1.8 in.)

120 x 67 x 49 mm (4.7 x 2.6 x 1.9 in.)

127 x 96 x 60 mm (5 x 3.8 x 2.4 in.)

A hit-for-six, slam-dunk, home-run?

If it's successful in its attempts to step up from the performance of the a6000 then the a6300 could be sensational. However, there are three questions that we'd like to see addressed. The first relates to handling: why does a camera costing this much only have one dial that you can access without changing the position of your grip? The rear dial isn't the worst we've encountered, but at this price point, we'd usually expect to find a dial under the forefinger and another under the thumb while maintaining a shooting grip.

The second relates to lenses. Sony is bundling the a6300 with the 16-50mm power zoom that's far more notable for its convenience than its optical consistency, a move that's likely to raise the question of what other lenses to fit. Sony offers a handful of reasonably priced APS-C-specific prime lenses as well as some more expensive FE-compatible full-frame primes. However, in terms of standard zooms, you're currently limited to the inexpensive 16-50mm, the older 18-55mm at aftermarket prices or considerably more expensive options such as the 18-105mm F4 or the 16-70mm F4 Zeiss that costs around the same amount as the camera again. The success of Sony's full frame a7 cameras is only likely to improve third-party lens availability but there's a risk that Sony's focus will be on those full frame users for the foreseeable future.

Our final concern is the lack of joystick or touchscreen to re-position the AF point. This may be mitigated during stills shooting if the lock-on AF system works well enough (starting AF tracking and then recompose your shot in the knowledge that the AF point will stay where you want it), but it appears to be a real omission for refocusing while shooting video. The a6300 is improved over previous models, in that pressing the center button on the four-way controller toggles into AF point selection mode, a decision that's retained even if you turn the camera off and on again. We'll see how significant all these concerns turn out to be, as the review unfolds.

Price and kit options

The 16-50mm power zoom is far more notable for its convenience than its optical consistency.

The a6300 body has a suggested retail price of $1000/£1000/€1250, with a 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 power zoom kit commanding an MSRP of $1150/£1100/€1400. This is a significant step up from the a6000's $650/$800 launch price and even an increase compared to the similarly well-built NEX-6's $750/$900 MSRP.

Review History

17 March 2016

Intro, Specs, Body and Handling, Operations and Control and Studio Comparison published

*Unusually, the manufacturer's claim that it'll live on, alongside its apparent replacement model seems plausible. The differences in spec and price could allow them to sit fairly comfortably alongside one another, rather than the claim simply meaning 'we'll keep saying it's a current model until most of the unsold stock has gone, to avoid angering retailers.'

Comments

Already there. The D-pad/back wheel works as an AF point selector starting with the A6300. You toggle it with the center button. Unlike the A6000, it stays in that mode until you hit the center button again, where you can then use the different functions for each direction.

Sony makes remarkable cameras: class leading sensors, features galore, I mean it's everything one could want right ? Yet I go back and forth and buy one of these bodies and always end up dissapointed, I know it's purely subjective but I often find myself happier with Fuji, Olympus or Canon. Its not just me, friends and fellow photogs always end up switching back. I think Sony is close to arriving at the right formula, but still have some work to do.

Agreed an amazing technology company that struggles to put their tech into a user friendly package. And for some reason have ignored this issue for years, maybe because companies like DP praise them anyway. Than based on profiles of reviewers most of them wouldn't pull out a Sony for a work but their dslr so oblivious even the reviewers that praise Sony won't use a Sony because of its issues.

Agreed, Sony makes good consumer electronics. Good sensor is about 50% of succsessful camera. But another 50% is the lens! Sensorwise I'm quite happy with Nikon's D3000 CCD. And I can live with my old Canon's 9-point AF-system. Both companys have broad range of descent cheapskate lenses. Sony doesn't. And Sony devices do not remind me much of a camera TBH )

For someone who enjoys photography (not just photos) as a pastime, the shooting experience might be just as important as the results.Also, if you're a professional, you probably want the tools of your trade to get in your way as little as possible.

both shooting experience and results are important. as fas as creating photographs go the shooting experience is important. and the results- nidt image quality- doesnt equate in any way a good photograph by itself.

Image quality is fine. In the past I, was dissapointed with the lens selection, but I know that has changed a bit, of course more so for their FF line than crop. The camera's are really remarkable and easily beat the pants off of everything else, yet I always had trouble connecting with them, I dunno ??

I like Fuji out of the box image quality, but of course the camera performance leaves quite a bit to be desired (slow operationg and focusing). Olympus is quite speedy, but the m43rds sensor leaves something to be desired. Canon is really behind the times, but Canon is also old reliable in that it's a very easy camera to use and connect with and the focusing is always spot on.

But there is no evidence that there is a bias in the scoring. The score is simply a weighted sum of many component scores. This camera would have received the same score no matter its brand.

The award is another matter entirely. Unlike the scoring system, the awards are meant to be subjective, to tell us something about the reviewer's personal opinion of the camera in comparison to its rivals. And we all know that personal opinion may vary greatly.

I think there is a lot more bias in the reaction to the scores than in the scoring itself.They are really not important enough to start throwing around accusations of bias. You take it or leave it and read around all the reviews and form your own judgement. Why shouldn't the reviewer like the camera and who is to say they are wrong.

@davinatorHere we go again. I'm not a fanboy. Use many camera's from different manufacturers. Have a look at my shortlist of cameras with only the most/least loved. The rest sold or given away. No bias here. Outta here quickly.

@perry rhodanYou virtually accuse the reviewers of unethical behaviour and then when people even suggest that you may not be entirely impartial yourself which is a far lesser crime you storm off in a huff! Debating for some people is a very one way process I think.

I was going to get the 6300, but with overheating issues reported, and the lack luster native 1080p quality, I'm passing and will look elsewhere.

Currently I don't have clients clamoring for 4K, and I don't need it for post, so I'm sitting tight and see what happens with 4K. I'm assuming it will be the standard, but I wonder how long that will take.

4K isn't just about 4K output. It also gives you way more freedom when outputting 1080p or 1440p. You can pan, zoom, or stabilized without losing quality, and then you'll likely still have surplus resolution allowing you to downsample to crisper, higher quality 1080p.

If you have the storage space (incredibly cheap) and a fast enough computer (not as cheap) to edit it, there are no disadvantages to 4K, only advantages.

Thousands sold I can count on my fingers an reports of unexpected overheating.. I have used mind for over 2000 shots on session being 9+ hours 1200 shots three batteries lot of waiting looking at VF or LCD for moment Not even a warning still shooting. The 4K limit is documented. in manual.. So if you want long 4K sessions no this is not the camera if 20 minutes is enough it works great

Remember that it's not just 4K that's been added to video. You also get the Picture Profiles, available in all resolutions/frame rates, which massively expand the way you can capture and grade images. While not the exact same as RAW, it does give you a similar level of flexibility. There are so many settings to adjust the image to your liking pre-capture, which can also expand the way you handle it post-capture. These are the same kinds of settings available in Sony's (and other brands') pro video cameras.

The X-Pro2 has it too, with ISO 200/800 instead of Sony's 100/400. According to Thom Hogan, it's likely the same "real" ISO (in terms of sensor saturation) in the Fujifilm and the Sony, but Fujifilm maps it to a higher output ISO (JPEG brightness) to give more highlight headroom.

I will note for all the "DPR loves Sony" that the Sony A77M2 a camera that shoots 11 FPS and have full VF for Video they took a YEAR... to review that.. So no its not by brand.. they make an editorial call based on what they think will interest people sometimes I think it is a but self fulfilling but .. last year the 7D got a ton of coverage AND a reviews in weeks even before the Sony in that market.. so there is model bias .. not brand bias they like some stuff better for reviews. I wasn't happy about that delay either and got snarky but.. clearly not putting all Sony up front..

I've been agonizing over whether to buy an a6000 for well over a year now to complement my a7 kit (and so I can share lenses between bodies rather than a line of lenses for each). The a6000 (and probably this a6300 too) is a great camera but every time I hold one, I just can't bring myself to buy one. It is not comfortable in my hand, therefore I am not comfortable, and it feels like a fiddly little thing. If the body was styled more like a smaller a7-type body or even anything more ergonomic and stylish than a utility box, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. I truly WANT to like the 6000 series but it is very uncomfortable and utilitarian-like.

If Sony only would come up with some good lenses!! What good is a class leading housing without the same quality lenses in a choice that befits a "class leading" camera. Olympus and Panasonic seem to be the only companies that have given proper emphasis on lenses for the less than FF camera bodies.

I disagree...some of the e-mount Sony lenses are really excellent. A sad myth, unfortunately the blame lies on Sony's shoulders, because of the inconsistent quality of some of their lenses. And because of the actual poor optical quality/design of a very few others.

Sorry, have to join the voices that see this as yet another suspiciously favorable review of a Sony product. There is no question, the Sony E-mount and FE-mount cameras produce fantastic images and video. This is offset by still-questionable ergonomics, unspoken issues with overheating when shooting continuous video, an endlessly unbalanced native e-mount lens lineup, and a dozen questions of how DPR awarded the A6300 a Gold Award.

I shoot APS-C and FF Nikon and m4/3, and for this class of camera Panasonic remains the company to beat (as much as I love Olympus).

And yes, I had invested in and shot Sony E-mount up until the beginning of this year and finally got fed up with video overheating and no new mid-range native E-mount glass (the new FE lenses are fantastic glass at a price that is out of reach of all but well healed enthusiasts and pros).

Reviews, no matter claims of non-bias, are subjective. I don't think there's money exchanged or anything, just that the current DPR staff really like those recent Sony cameras, despite problems that are deal breakers for others. No biggie.

And last year it was they love Canon.. did you see the 7DMKII coverage with video trips etc and a review in weeks while another SONY model was still waiting for review from the previous spring.. ITs clearly about cameras they think have interests.. Canon DSLR Sony MIRRORLESS both lead and have sales to back it.. and it sucks when you like a camera that is slow to get a review.. but I see no brand bias vs What gets clicks bias.. its a business.

Also, please read through the comments. We're being attacked both for being too positive about Sony and, conversely, for over-stating our concerns about the UI/UX and lens range and hence being unfair to Sony.

Not sure how the Nikon d7200 is the benchmark for comparison for a year now and the Sony a6300 doesn't match or beat the Nikon and the Nikon receives a silver and the Sony a gold. I guess cameras have gotten worse with time so they get higher awards or maybe the Sony has such a great user interface it deserves the over look.

Welcome to the new DPR, mirrorless central where skinny jean pocketability is the new benchmark. :) The D7000 was the IQ benchmark for years, and it was also only worthy of a Silver. Don't bother trying to figure out the logic in the awards.

@pkcpga while the D7200 benefits for Nikon Lens selection, the Sony A6300 is easily better than the Nikon. This camera finally is the milestone marking the Mirrorless overtaking DSLR for the majority if uses.

I agree the a6300 was a nice step forward in autofocus for mirrorless but in image quality it's not a step forward its on par, definetly not for jpegs though, color is still an issue. As a camera it's not set up well, does not sit well in your hand, complaints for years. The menus are too complicated and unorganized. The controls are too hard to reach while in shooting position. Not everything has external controls. It's very hard to control all those autofocus points with a mushy useless pad, no touchscreen to select, no separate joystick to control points. It's basically like throwing a Ferrari engine in a Yugo and stating its the best because it has a great engine but nothing else works well, but we'll still price it at a BMW which has the better blend of everything.

Cameras are not rated on image quality alone. Image quality on cameras have not changed much (at best 1/3 stop according dxomark) since 2010. Even more importantly, if cameras were only rated by image quality, most cameras will score same as most cameras use the same Sony flagship sensor. It was same story 5 years ago with 16 MP Sony sensor that was used in 20 or so cameras by different companies.

There is a a lot to a camera than just image quality.

Also, we are at peak of what can be achieved with bayer sensor, so its idiotic to assume if you expect to see a large jump in image quality when that has not been done for 6 years.

I think we forget use. If you're a professional using a camera day in and out, then perhaps a mirrored camera with a big lens selection might be good. I'm a traveler first and photographer second, and found my huge Nikon DSLR sitting in the closet most of the time in favor of smaller cameras. As a long time Sony user, I think the current menu is great! I prefer it over my Nikon menu. Of course perhaps coming from the Nex 7 menu from hell it just seems better. I take two small cameras that cover from 15-100mm so never have to change lenses, the bane of travel photographers in tense conditions. So my lens needs are minimal too. That said, I see no reason to upgrade to the a6300. It has all the improvements I'm not looking for except perhaps weather sealing.

HowaboutRAW, This says a lot about your credibility if you think A6300 is 2 stop better than cameras like D7000, K-5, A580 when even D4 is hardly 2 stop better than these 2010 APSC cameras. Given you believe something this stupid, tells us a lot about your credibility.

However, you have always been a clown on this website, given you also think lenses produced color and that D4 is a stop better than A7s. You have no credibility. You are simply a clown on DPR.

The difference between 2010 sensor and 2016 sensor isn't more than 1/3 stop. We are at peak of what can be achieved with a bayer sensor so it's idiotic to expect much change in image quality, and indeed there is just 1/3 stop change since 2010.

Photography is still about the photo. Than the camera is a tool that gets you the best possible photo you can take. So image quality and the ability of the camera to help you get the best possible photo you can, should be very important. So basically you are willing to state you prefer the Sony a6300 to the Nikon d7200 for scoring purposes but professionally not use the Sony instead use a dslr. That's kind of what gave used car salesman their name.

pkcpga, you are posting nonense. As far as image quality goes, Nikon isn't better than A6300. In fact, Nikon isn't even that better than 2010 cameras like K-5 and Nex5n. As I said, there hasn't been that much jump in image quality with bayer sensor since 2010.

If the reviews were only about image quality, why would you need a camera review anyway? Just read the numbers on dxomark, and take a note that D7200 is better by 1/3 compared to 2010 cameras, a difference that isn't perceptible to human eye.

@ Richard,One difference here is that the d7200 has no anti-aliasing filter, but the A6300 does. Some have estimated that the improvement of not having the AA filter is about + 10% in sharpness, all things considered. Would you agree?

As I say in the review, if the a6300 does have an AA filter, it's very, very weak, given how similar its performance is to the D7200.

I wouldn't personally try to put numbers on it. An AA filter is designed to blur frequencies that the camera can't correctly capture so although there's a chance that it'll produce slightly sharper-looking images, you also risk aliasing that might bave a bigger impact on image quality.

Also, the main reason (other than cost-saving) that AA filters are being omitted is that the sensor resolutions are getting high enough that the lens ends up acting as a filter a lot of the time. So you'll only see that sharpness difference on rare occasions.

Is there a technical reason why most (if not all) mirrorless cameras display the previously taken picture in the viewfinder during burst shooting? I'm not sure if that's what the A6300 is doing here as well, but it's certainly an impressive step forward.

Live view tends to be produced from the sensor running in a lower resolution, faster readout drive mode. I believe the issue is how quickly the camera can switch back and forwards between live view mode and capture mode.

If you simply display the previous image, you can just leave the camera in capture mode. If you want to offer live updates you have to keep switching back and forth.

As bluevellet says, a DSLR offers a live update between shots by dropping its mirror down, so again the sensor can stay in capture mode.

That's my understanding, at least, if anyone with a greater knowledge of such things wishes to correct or refine that description, please go ahead.

We mention it in both the intro and conclusion pages (the most-read pages in any review).

DPReview has always reviewed the body, not the system, because it's impossible to second-guess what lenses someone wants or needs. Should we really be giving all Canon cameras a better result because they have some tilt-shift lenses in their lineup, even though most people will never need, want or use one?

some possibilities:1. your comment containing the typical fanboy rant.2. your comment have possibilities to mislead other people.3. your comment has been "parroted" over and over by other users or yourself, just copy & paste & modify a bit -esque type of comment.4. you comment containing hate speech.

For APS-C best one would have to be Fujifilm with better lens quality I noticed his sharp images from Fuji camera he test alongside with Sony A6000 and A6300. And the noise seems to be handled better by Fuji thanks to sensor they invented. X-Trans. I know it is not cheap to buy Fujifilm with X-Trans and some of lens are expensive though.

Well I disagree nathto. First of all Xtrans is not a sensor made by Fuji. It is a different kind of Sony sensor to be sure. Also A6300 is more capable since it does give you 4K video and nice warm and comfy hands to go with that so no gloves needed which makes video-operation so much more enjoyable. Sony has been making this feature for 5 years now and no one seems to be able to catch up.The A6300 is a very good cam. Only point is that its downsides are downplayed by reviewers over here while of some other cams they are making a huge point of some minor issues that can be circumvented...

Camera lab's "and upgrades the weather-sealing" is mistaken. Sony does not claim it to be weather sealed. Although it is now upgraded to having a "Dust and moisture resistant magnesium-alloy body" according to Brian Smith.http://briansmith.com/sony-a6300-field-test-review/

Androole....I was may be overdoing it a bit. A bit. But it says so in their handbook of the cam I have been told. It is also noted in this review....So after 5 yrs this is somehow acceptabel, where others do not have such a problem at all....Well...Must be me I guess.

Fuji had the same problem, and decided not to add 4K to the X-Pro2. I'm happy Sony did include it, as it is absolutely incredible! For a short clip shooter like me, I haven't run into any issues, even when leaving the camera on in between clips for 45 min while testing Picture Profiles.

Panasonic already made full sensor readout in 1080p.Doing it in 4k requires vast processing power which generates heat which has to be released somehow.

This is why Sony's tend to overheat more often.Panasonic will follow when they can. My money is upcoming photokina on a GH5. The Gh4 is getting a bit long in the tooth. Panasonic only released lower tier (for video) camera's since.

How is Gh4 getting long in the tooth. You can shoot video without worries you know, you also have Vlog. After 2 yrs I love the cam. Batterylife is unsurpassed as well. Af is great.I find it good to see Panoly not only focus on camerabodies but lenses too. Now that they have figured out 5 axis IBIS+video in 4K (GX85) the time has come for a GH5 with this ability and be a smashing cam. New shuttermechanism is nice too. Now if they can do 80D AF in video...that would be quite soemthing.I think we can expect a better EVF too but I wonder about the sensor. Since I think they will use the 20 MP m43 sensor we currently see in GX8/PenF I do not expect a lot of development on the stills side. May be an even better version of DFD might make it better again for actionshooting surely if they also can appply zerolag like the A6300 does.

SimpleIt's 2 years old and no replacement yet. The ISO performance in video was never to write home about. Which was easily to forgive 2 years ago as it was the only accessible 4k capable ILC. Times have changed.

That IBIS comment is practically why it's long in the tooth. Panasonic has better technology available to make a GH5 possible.

I agree on the lenses part. The 42.5mm F1.7 OIS for instance. brilliant recent lens.

I am not sure about a better EVF. Better optics sure (Gh4 was good but not XT-1/EM-1 good) But no one besides Leica uses that 4 million dot evf yet. Wonder why?

I'd expect that sensor too. A modest upgrade over what it has now.

The Zero lag is a nice feature. Would love to see that in the Gh5. All in all upgrades that do point at the Gh4 age.That said it was ahead of it's time.

Cam seems more than capable by fa in every aspect. Lenses used for review surely add to the images delivered as shown here. There are two things that make me wonder. First the audience to which this cam is aiming for. I think that the majority will not take advantage of its fine qualities overall. But this surely has nothing to do with the cam.Second, and that has to do with all manufacturers. Invest in GUI and its concept. Comprehensive concept of GUI can make even a mediocre device a winner by giving the ability to its user to get the most out of it without fiddling around for its potential. We have a serious tool here, no matter the usual fan boys argues that spice up any review.

The A6300 still lacks stabilization. They could have made it very slightly larger and incorporated 3-axis IBIS, like on my E-M10. That gets me 3 1/2 f-stops. That would be GREAT for using all the unstabilized FE and Zeiss lens which Sony keeps pushing at us.

Tempting specs and capabilities, but Sony cameras are just toys and the idea of Sony making cameras is a joke. I have a 10 yr old Sony 10mp point-n-shoot DSC and it's nice. I also like Sony sensors in my Nikons. But do you guys remember what happened to state-of-the-art Sony TVs and VAIOs notebooks? Sony isn't serious about cameras or anything else, it's just a good marketing machine for fancy toys of this current year. "Are gaming consoles and mirrorless cameras popular this year? Then we sells them, otherwise cancel production and the party is over." This is why I'll stick to my Canikons which have dedication and many decades of history behind them. New 6D Mk II is going to be a killer camera I believe.

Decades of tradition are what are holding Canikon back. Look at their mirrorless cameras. Non-competitive right out of the box. Nikon even shot themselves in the foot by releasing the DL P&S series. Basically fixed lens Nikon 1 cameras with the fast lenses everyone wanted for their 1s, never to be released as separate lenses. Not to mention EVFs and the high IQ J5/Sony sensor. And Canon's M3 is finally competitive with Sony mirrorless from almost 5 years ago. The only reason they're staying afloat is because Canikon can afford to waste money. Unless they can release fresh, new from the ground up, competitive technology, their days of bleeding money into mirrorless will come to an end soon. At that point, mirrorless performance will be on par with DSLRs, leaving Canikon scrambling to stay on top.

Blue, I've been reading about the death of SLRs for quite a while now, but those making the predictions fail to realize some simple and very obvious facts: there is no MLC system that's capable of serving the needs of PJ/action shooters. Nothing in the MLC world can touch the capabilities of a Nikon D5 or a Canon 1dX. No MLC has access to the amazing lens selection available to Canikon shooters. Forget adapters; they only slow y down and add one more device to increase the number of variables. No MLC can match the speed of top of the line SLRs. Not even close. SLRs continue to dominate the PJ/action world for one very simple reason: they're better. Yes, for now, but I can only tell you that if I were a paid PJ going to a war zone, I'd sure as hell have a couple of SLRs hanging around my neck and no MLC. Same for weddings. Shoot what you like, and I do (m4/3) but the SLR is far from dead.

Fuji's retro aesthetics don't do anything for me, and there are more than enough cameras pretending to be from the 70's already. I think Sony devices look fantastic, modern, function over form, no-nonsense.

The RAWs from the XPro2 may be very sharp, but the RAWs from a GX8 or EM1 are also very sharp. In terms of resolution, Fuji X-trans files have never been top of their class. The 24MP of the XPro2 just offsets the disadvantages they had previously.

that's the point @ruicarv79 ... never underestimate the importance of pleasure in grabbing, holding, looking at and of course shooting your camera which all adds to the experience...

This is what Fuji cameras embody to me and what I am missing in Sony cameras...(thinking of getting a used A7r though...)

I prefer a camera which I love to take and hold in my hands anytime over a feature-packed camera that can do absolutely everything I possibly want to but does not deliver the same shooting experience ...

It's an oxymoron to claim USB charging is convenient and inconvenient at the same time. If you're running multiple batteries, you'll get an external charger anyway. And to be very fair, USB charging the FW-50 battery is a LOT faster than using an external charger. By USB, I can get full charge in slightly over an hour versus about 3 with a dedicated charger.

I know ideally the camera should support USB charging AND come with a dedicated external charger, but I don't see any manufacturers doing this. So if I had to compromise, I'd rather my camera come with USB charging than not.

My 70D, which is in the same price class, came with an external charger, as do many other cameras. Also, if charging by usb is quicker than by external charger, then there's something *very* wrong with that external charger...

Spaspa, you're right about that. But I never even considered that a negative, since I prefer to be able to use my camera on a spare while charging an empty battery. That said, my cheapo Panasonic travel zoom (a TZ7 if I'm not mistaken) DID come with an external charger while also being capable of being charged by usb.

It does come with charger, but internal one. Well, not really because you still need 110/240v to 5v converter, but cellphone charger is everywhere anyway. Since no manufacturer sell one camera with two chargers, I think internal charger is the right choice. You can buy external charger, but not internal.

I like internal charging a lot, imagine you charge the camera within one hour drive, you do not pack extra charger when you travel etc. Obviously, if one's consumption of battery power is so high, that you cannot recharge all your empty pack in avaialble time - then you need to take 25 - 50 EUR to buy external one (I have one myself - purchased with previous camera)

I believe X100T and X-Pro2 will USB charge but also come with an external charger. I think the Sony RX1R II does, too.

It's not an oxymoron to appreciate the convenience of USB charging while also recognising the inconvenience of not also including an external charger. It's up to each reader to decide how important each of those factors is.

I'd take internal charging ANY day for two reasons. First, is that if you have internal charging, you can always buy an external charger (or two). If your camera doesn't support internal charging, then external is your only option. Second, it's actually feasible to carry one of those external battery packs and charge a battery on the go. Of course I'd greatly prefer to not to have to carry 2-4 batteries with me if I'm going to be shooting all day, but that's a different discussion ...

@Greg, the reason the external charger is so much slower is because Sony never updated the charger models, and you're stuck with buying the original designs (which roughly take 3 hours to charge) from the NEX days. Also the Sony FW-50 batteries are somewhat low capacity, which is why they'd charge pretty quickly on USB. To compare, my Fuji X30 needs 3-4 hours to fully charge. On the other hand, I imagine the power is more safely regulated than USB charging, where using poorly designed cables can risk shorting out your equipment. I typically charge using my phone's original charger, or via my PC/laptop to minimize the risk.

I used to have a 70D, and in my country, it's far more expensive than the a6000 kit. It may be in the same price range as the a6300, but don't forget that Canon now has an 80D, and the a6300 is closer in comparison to the specs of the 7DmkII than the 70D (faster burst speed, and focuses between each shot).

Richard, I agree with you in principle. There's no reason manufacturers can't give an external dedicated charger (as opposed to a cheap plug with a USB cable).

But you cited the X100T, RX10II and X-Pro 2 as examples. And well, they're ridiculously expensive cameras, they should come with some extras. As much as I'd like for this approach to trickle down to cheaper cameras, I sincerely doubt it's going to happen, because brands also rely on the sales of aftermarket accessories to offset their costs. I have an X30, and I had to buy an external third party charger because an original one is far too expensive.

Stay strong DPR, there's a whole lot of forum members here claiming DPR is a Sony shill and everything Sony is Gold. It's hard and at times lonely walking the rightful path but you must stay true. Don't succumb to the whining by fanboys.

TBH, for this money, I would get a GH4 + 12-35 f2.8 or other versatile lens. Still best in class video from my year of more of viewing 4K on YouTube. Plus you get all the sockets (mic/headphone etc) And of course, a usable menu system and tactile on body controls. I have owned an NEX 5R and an NEX 3 model before my current camera (GX8). These cute Sony's are capable of superb stills and video, but a pain to use! A6300 seems v pricey for it's deficiencies although it is technically amazing how Sony can cram so much advanced tech into such a small body - their expertise.

The a6000 was a significant step up from the NEX series. I owned an NEX-7 before it was stolen, and the first time customizing it was a real pain. The a6000 has a much better menu in comparison, though I agree it can still be better. But I've also handled Olympus OMD menus before, and that's an even bigger pain to customize than Sony. Honestly, if you can live with a mediocre kit lens and the somewhat bewildering menus, the a6000 is your best bang for the buck, and chances are, you're not going to miss the features of the a6300 with the notable exceptions of 4k video recording and the reduced viewfinder lag when shooting in bursts.

Well......we now have the GX80/85 too and that seems a very serious camera for that kind of money, bringing 4K video without overheating problems (would be a first one for Panny), bringing a better EVF, 5-axis IBIS, much better lens choice as Always with mFTs.Where I felt the A6000 very muc hdeserved a Gold award 2 years ago i fail to see how this Sony (with overheating problems AGAIN!!!) still gets the award. What is it? A better EVF, sensor is not much better from what I see. If I have to compare this cam with the GX8 for instance....well......how did that one get a silver award? Shuttershock inspite of it letting you shoot at full IQ with the eshutter...GX80/85 has introduced a new shuttermechanism to prevent even that now the fun is: can we find a small point that dpreview can penalise it for?

Add copyrighting to that, too. These are only photo improvements, and only off the top of my head. There are definitely more, along with many body improvements and video improvements beyond just 4K and 120fps, as well.

Richard, could you explain the ugly artifacts you get on the Sony A6000/A6300 from +3 to +5 EV @ ISO 100, if you look at the handle of the brush(lower right corner)? Nikon D7200 and Canon 80D doesn't show the same problem.

some possibilities:1. your commentcontaining the typical fanboy rant2. your comment have possibilities to mislead other people3. your comment has been "parroted" over and over by other users or yourself, just copy & paste & modify a bit -esque type of comment.4. you comment containing hate speech.

@bakanecko...1.You've never read my comment2.The fact that even Dpreview hasn't commented or sent me an email explaining their action.3.Original thread wasn't mine4.Another fact that you're defending Dpreview without any knowledge whatsoever about their action which makes you a "fanboy extraordinaire-esque"5.If Dpreview is dependent on you for defending their action they've lost the case.

that's why i said possibilities duh, are you offended by my post? why? i am not personally attacking you but somehow reading comments section on DPR it's a good thing they start to moderate things. lol maybe i should changed "your" to "user" to calm short fused people like you.

i was just trying to add a positive feedback that might lead to your question and suddenly you accused me for being a dpreview fanboy? is that how you do discussion with people?

You're obsessed. I have two gps camera and there's no battery drain related with GPS. The battery drains because of shooting pictures.

GPS module is an antenna with NO transmission and it worth about 2-5% of the total battery consumption in the camera use case (very different from smartphones where you have it ON all day long). And it delivers a very very useful service, geotagging your pictures.

There's more, I ever had two batteries for my cameras, one is never enough. At this point shooting 320 pictures instead of 330 because of GPS is negligible.

This GPS story is like saying that your petrol car is consuming more with A/C on. Sure, but you can't travel without A/C is useful, it's a service.

Any AF tests with the G-Master 70-200/2.8 or 85/1.4?The continuous tracking certainly seem impressive as it follows the subject around the screen but I haven't seen any really shallow DOF continuous AF tests yet. It'd be nice to push the AF to see how well it does with much shallower DOF situations during tracking.

Well yes. But it's easy for us armchair pundits to criticise but testing AF comprehensively would be pretty tricky because of all the variables. So I'll take the tests here for what's it's worth but I would like to see the A6300 system stressed more Eg. Using faster lens at shorter subject distances where inaccuracies aren't hidden in DOF or where background is closer and busier.

Only a small percentage of buyers of the 6300 will ever use prime lenses with it, so why are only prime lenses used in the reviews of the Sony APS-C cameras? Answer: The Sony APS-C zoom lenses are junk glass that get terrible reviews. If Sony ever produces a good quality native APS-C zoom lens for this camera, I would seriously consider buying one, (despite it's poorly designed grip and ergonomics). I keep waiting and hoping Sony wakes up some day and gets the news that optical quality is important to serious amateur photographers and the vast majority of sub FF sensor ILC owners (me included), rarely use or even own prime lenses. Poor lens selection for APS-C is one of the major reasons I left the Sony A mount, and six years later nothing has changed, unfortunately.

I don't think people buying such an expensive camera (even if you get a lot for your money) are the ones who will just use a kit lens. I'd like to see the figures, but to me, this is clearly not an entry-level camera.

I'm no pro, but i would just either buy body only, sell that kit lens if buying a set-bargain, or leave that kit lens to dust. Seriously, that glass will not do justice to that body. The very reason why even Dpr too not using that kit lens.

You left A mount because of the absence of high quality zooms? I don't know what to say. Not only do Sony make a lot of high quality aps-c A-mount zooms - including the excellent 16-50/2.8 and the 16-105, they also make the best aps-c standard zoom you can buy and likely the best 5x zoom ever made, the 16-80ZA - which no-one who shoots A-mount aps-c should be without.

Leaving A-mount because of an 'absence of high quality aps-c zooms' is just about one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard anyone do. It's like leaving the Bordeaux region of France because you like good wine.

Given the fact that the Sony aps-c cameras have only a single body with an EVF it is a bit risky making any investments in lenses. When the A6400 comes along and you do not like it there is no choice of bodies here to switch to. This seems very much a kit only system which is how many people may view it. Also no affordable cameras unless you drop the EVF.The viabilility of this as a system really depends on the A6000 continuing or a replacement coming out. It all looks a bit threadbare at the moment.

The 16-70/f4 is downright soft in the corners and very expensive, the 18-105/f4 is also not stellar optically and is a bit bulky, but at least it's got a wide range and a good price tag. The latter is the one I would probably think about if I had an E-mount camera.

Neither have an f2.8 aperture. Neither are weather sealed. I'm not sure they could be called "premium" zooms. They're...well, f/4 standard zooms! No more no less.

Why can Fuji make a corner-to-corner sharp weather-sealed 16-55/2.8 for $1200, and Olympus can make a corner-to-corner sharp weather-sealed 12-40/2.8 for $900, but Sony would need to charge twice as much for something competitive?

Sony could still surprise us with a relatively inexpensive APS-C 2.8 zoom but it doesn't look likely with the new full frame 2.8 zoom at over $2K. It certainly not easier or cheaper to manufacture a top-quality APS-C 2.8/16-70 model compared to the 24-70 full-frame.

I took a year to decide between Panasonic M43 or Sony 6000, and I found it a hard decision. Video is very important to me and both systems had their advantages. I recently decided to go for the G7. Now that the 6300 is out I was reconsidering my choice… It surely is a heck of a camera, but it has its flaws too. Several tests have shown that it had extreme rolling shutter and the overheating problem is not something to discard lightly. The most important drawback to me remains the lack of convincing lenses for this camera. Sony now only offers good (but very expensive and large) full frame lenses, and if you decide to invest in these lenses one should move up to one of the A7 camera’s. The lack of affordable and good lenses for this format would be an insurmountable problem to me. It is a shame, because on the camera side they seem to lead the pack…

I had both Sony APC-C E-system and MFT for a while. MFT lens lineup blows Sony out of the water. You could argue that MFT doesn't do well at high ISO, but with in-body stabilization it does better than one might think. Add to that the fact that lenses are one third the size and weight, so they'll actually be with you and not at home, and IMO MFT is hard to argue against. The only major thing is, bokeh is more difficult to obtain, but on MFT this is solved by just slapping a longer lens (such as the wonderful 75mm f/1.8) onto the camera. All in all, no regrets.

Perfectly fine camera in regards to specifications. But a camera with such a limited and downgraded user interface at that price point is doubtfully "gold" in my book. But this is what we learnt to expect from Sony in the meantime. I wonder how much longer it takes them to get any user interface up to the quality of its peers. It is really a bummer and - beside some crazy price choices - the main reason to keep me away.

I just read a thread of posts complaining about the speed of Sony's tests versus other brands. They were harsh, and maybe not true, but not insulting. Then I refershed the page and the thread was gone. If the thread was censored doesn't help dpreview's image.

I can believe that. I commented recently asking whether the Miami event was paid for and complements of Sony or did DPReview pay their own way and that whole thread was deleted. If that doesn't set off red flags I don't know what would.

Have read other comments about people being critical about some Sony content and that content has been deleted. Things that makes you go 'hmmmmm'.

Myriad of products to review. DPR picks and choose which model are available (early), which are popular and which the staff are particularly keen to play with. Im not surprised an A6300 review was quickly delivered due to high reader (and staff) interest.

But I do wish they would review more lenses from all brands. They used to be better at it, but they're seriously slacking in the last few years.

I agree with bluevellet. I don't think there's anything sinister. They have limited resources, so they go with what they know will be popular.

The longstanding complaint is how slow they've been to review the D810. It's an update to the D800E, for sure, but if we're honest, would a DPR review change anyone's opinion? If you liked the D800E and are a Nikon shooter, you'll love the D810. If you shoot Canon, you're better off getting a 5Ds. Ta da, done!

Yup. I come here for camera info, news and the forums but as for DPReview content, they have lost all credibility with me.

DPR have demonstrated a very pro-Sony bias for awhile now. Even the way they phrase things has a positive or less harsh spin to it - when they talk about Sony the say things like 'one of the top' but when they speak of other brands they say something like 'not as good as'.

Probably because Sony has been making gigantic strides as far as image & video quality are concerned as compared to other brands... I used to think Sony were the pits at high ISO ... now they seem to be leading (or at least at the top) of the pack...

Plus Sony is constantly pushing the boundaries of innovation - especially sensor design as clearly demonstrated with this gem of a sensor in the 6300 ... Most other brands simply refine a previous generations technology...

As an EM5markii owner, I can understand why DPR "punished" that camera for not doing enough to warrant a gold award. But the good foundations laid out with the mark 1 and then improved upon the mark 2 made a highly capable photographic tool. I would still personally choose it over an A6300 (or the A6000).

The EM-5 did win gold though. And given the vast innovations of 5 axis ibis and the vastly improved sensor it rightfully deserved it.

This Sony is also pushing boundaries. In both video (which has always been a strength) and sport photography. Where the live view during bursts is really helpful. As is the rather impressive PDAF system.

the mk2 is a great tool sure. But it just didn't make such an amazing step forward as the A6300 and the EM-5 did.

The EM-5 II had the same sensor as the old EM-5 which cost it a lot of points. The Xpro-2 has a brand new sensor that is very good but is competing in FF territory not with this camera which is far cheaper.

The D7200 was a small incremental upgrade over the D7100 with no major ground breaking tech which is why it 'only' got the silver award.

Sensor isn't everything though. Other aspects of the XPro2 can be improved upon without been groundbreaking vis-a-vis the competition. That's the gist of what I understand of DPR's reviewing standards anyway.

Only issue with your comment is DP and every review company is still comparing the d7200 as the benchmark apsc sensor and the a6300 did not match or beat it's performance. So unless cameras have gotten worse over the past year or the Sony interface is the best(oblivious joke) how is it gold, don't say video, DP neglected to mention the previously mentioned rolling shutter issue in their review, but I have a comment were the reviewer did state it was present and the 1080 quality was a step back even though 4K was very good and didn't understand what happened.

The A6300 fits D7200 image quality and AF performance into a much smaller and even less expensive package. It also offers class-leading video quality, far surpassing anything that's available from the D7200. The D7200 has a better UI and ergonomics. If you don't care about small and light or video or adapted lenses, or any of the other mirrorless advantages, get a D7200.

But as others have mentioned, the D7200 was a solid upgrade to a solid camera. But the A6300 made new capabilities accessible to a lower market class that weren't there before. You can argue that Panasonic did it first, but the AF and low-light performance on the A6300 make it an upgrade.

Iterative resting on laurels doesn't get awarded. For Gold you need to significantly move forward the capabilities of the camera class.

There was a Sony bias actually - it was AGAINST Sony. Phil and the old team kept readers in the dark for years about Sony's progress. That's why Canon users are so dumbfounded :) There were no reviews of exceptional lenses like the 135/1.8 or 16-80ZA and most of the innovations went for nothing. Phil didn't even understand why E-mount was the size it was.

There certainly isn't a pro-Sony bias now either, the quality of journalism and testing is just higher - significantly so - and Sony are producing notable and innovative products which are getting covered well. There is plenty of criticism if you want to look for it, and plenty of content about other brands.

The a6300's image quality is essentially indistinguishable from the D7200 but as soon as you give consideration to any aspect of video (quality, handling, support features), the a6300 crushes the D7200.

Our scoring system doesn't give a lot of weight to video (because we don't think most of our readers do), but you would have to completely ignore that aspect of both cameras to think that the a6300 isn't more advanced.

You're going to have to elaborate on "why the E-mount is the size it is," because I don't think there's a great understanding among the community, or even among industry experts.

The consensus you hear most often based on interviews with lens manufacturers like Sigma, is that the E-mount is the size that it is because it was designed for APS-C, and is too small to comfortably accommodate FF lenses with its short flange distance. Do you have a more complete explanation, perhaps from someone at Sony?

As a veteran from 4x5s to the a6300 and A7RII, what I appreciate about the a6300 is face detect metering. Even if the image quality of the D7200 is equal to the a6300s the metering is not. The exposure metering and focus with a face in the picture is simply astonishing. The OOC jpegs are so good I really can't think of any reason to waste time in post.

Ergonomics is very subjective. The whole reason m43 and Sony is selling mirrorless very well is testament to the fact that a lot of people don't want to carry around a bulky DSLR and want something more compact.

While the Sony FE series of lenses are pretty big the APS-C bodies and lenses are far more compact than say a D7200. So for many they would rather take something small than a big DSLR like the D7200.

it's same as my A7ii and previous A6000. you have to push middle button first than you can move the point but with a slight turning the wheel, focusing point zone is changing...you need to rotate back to flexible point and move again...it's really annoying

The fact that Sony says "touchscreens are not a priority for us" but literally every single review and a large portion of the commenters and potential customers are asking for one is just crazy.

It wouldn't be so infuriating if they didn't already offer a touchscreen on their cheaper stripped-down models like the A5100. It reeks of cynical bean-counters to omit a $10 part on a camera that has had its margin pushed up by $300 with its latest refresh...

For what it's worth, if Sony offered an EVF-equipped model with a touchscreen, I would now be invested in that system in addition to, or maybe even instead of, Micro Four Thirds. They're losing out on a huge customers base.

Yup, the center button is now a toggle for the D-pad to work full time as an AF point joystick or to use the functions assigned to each direction. No need to keep pressing the center button each time to change AF points.

The problem with the menu is that sony can't win anymore. If they 100% change it again many will be unhappy since it now is kind of the same for all the sony cameras. Also 'better' seems to be more like canon because i know that for many. What they seem to hint at is to make more and more buttons programmable and the quickmenu. This is a patch for sure but does work for many the biggest downside is that for reviewers this is hard because it takes time to adjust and accept what you have been given and create work arounds. Things like muscle memory can be a tricky thing. I for example can change most of not all settings by one hand without moving my eye from the viewfinder.

Well you know one now !. I would prefer they leave it and add more ways todo quick menu, buttons and maybe presets. add touchscreen for focus and the quickmenus for example. If a quick menu is a 'slider' make me slide it. This can all be done without any rewrite of things. Allow us to order/hide/move items in the menu. Many things possible without really killing the whole 'known' interface.

Not sure if i can help you then, the core question is can sony redesign it 100%. If you ask me they can't it will create a gap between what people are used too, the different models en will take about 2 years to cycle through there product line. What they need todo is patch it. So that at first it looks the same but once you invest time you can tune it to how you want it. This will still not make a GREAT menu system but it will allow us to work with it better and sony to avoid this very painful switch. Its called evolving it instead of a rewrite. A good example is say iOS the basic concepts are still the same as in 2007 but they added ways for power users to make it works for them.

Why do you say that, the fn buttons can already be set, the amount of buttons you can program is now 9, you can program the buttons on your lenses (focus buttons). The flipper can be programmed, the ok button can now act as a joystick. Not saying its perfect (trust me) but it seems sony is already doing the 'its all the same but you can override stuff'. If you ask me some of the things i outlined would extend this. On the a6300 facebook group it seems most take a few days to 'tune' their a6300 because of this. They start all the same but don't stay that way for sure the menus still suck but most people end up programming it so the have to be there as little as possible and that can be made even better. I think thats a more realistic goal for sony.

If it weren't so much more expensive than the A6000, I'd want it simply for the return of the electronic level. I shoot landscapes a lot and really miss the electronic level, which I gave up when I changed over from the NEX-6.

14-bit RAW should be enough to justify the expense if you shoot landscapes. The A6000 was pretty bad with 11+7-bit green shadows at low ISO. The A6300 has none of that, which improves usable dynamic range noticeably. You also get expanded bracketing (up to 15 stops wide!) and a silent shutter to help speed up the process.

From the sample images the Sigma 30mm 1.4 was far and away the best lens. The Sony APS-C native lenses were some of the worst, and not even the FF lenses were *that* much better. For example, how does a 16-35 f4 zoom stopped down a bit in the middle of the focus range have such massive decentering flaws on an APS-C crop (i.e. meaning the decentering would rear its head even more on FF) -

The 85mm 1.4 and 24-70 f2.8 GM are nice too but I consider a bit awkward on APS-C in terms of size and focal lengths, etc. But so far its the Sigma 30mm 1.4 that clearly is ahead of the pack by not a small margin in terms of overall quality and reasonable price.

I would probably just get a cheap Sony A6000 + Sigma 30mm 1.4 since I'm thinking you don't get the 'best' out of AF with Sigma, and with continuous drive the image quality isn't significantly better...

I'm talking about the APS-C lenses in the sample gallery including the 16-70 f4. The 24mm 1.8 is okay but I see little difference between it and the 22mm f2 pancake that is dirt cheap and tiny from Canon. Owned the 50mm 1.8 OSS, had some copy to copy variation and was okay. Do not see a whole lot of 35mm 1.8 full size samples, but its a pricy lens and see no reason to get it over the Sigma 30mm 1.4 from samples I've seen so far. I was speaking mostly of what I see from this gallery. And my best copy and images from sel 50mm 1.8 pales compared to the Sigma 30mm 1.4 I see here (and their 60mm f2.8 is better too although lacking OSS). Would not be surprised to see the newer cheap FE 50mm 1.8 beat out the SEL 50mm 1.8 in head to head comparisons.

the 24 1.8 is a good lens but many manufacturers today are producing very good lenses at a fraction of the price.. At 1/5 of the price the canon 24mm stm is just as sharp (DXO) i dont know about the 35mm lens or the other lenses you mention but the sel 1018 is not as sharp as the canon ef-m 12-22 when tested on a lower MP camera at 1/3 the price i find all the sony lenses i look at like this or the sony lenses was just down right poor ...

I tend to have a feeling that nearly any Sony lens prior to Batis/GM lineage just can be pretty dicey in consistency and copy to copy variation. So you either play lens lottery with any Sony lenses that are pre-Batis/GM, or you have what is really an extremely limited set of solid lens all built for FF...

Or you buy the Sigma lenses which actually look very good and you have some assurance that you get what you pay for without having to weed out inconsistently performing lenses.

Im going to get the sony sel 35 oss and not the probably a bit sharper sigma 1.4 because of lacking oss. I got the sigma 30mm 2.8 dn, its much better than the kit (at least at daylight) but im disappointed with lowlight performance (blurry pictures starting at 1/40). I would like to have a 24mm but there is only the expensive zeiss without oss. Thats really annoying. If there is a cheaper 22mm or 24mm with oss coming and an affordable 2.8 zoom like 16-40mm, i will be really happy....

The Sigma 1.4 assuming you get what you want in DOF will gather about the same amount of light as your Sigma 2.8 with a 1/160 shutter speed. It depends on your low light use case. Some people don't understand this and think a Nikon D5 is the perfect low light camera for shooting *still* life at slow shutter speeds which is bizarre indeed.

Actually, the A6300 has some new features to improve ergonomics over A6000. It looks like "ergonomics" was used by the reviewer as some type of "ballansing" issue not to be held as too positive toward Sony.

When I read the pros and cons, it all comes out looking excellent to me. If you're a stills photographer who shoots at a moderate pace, who couldn't care less about video, high frame rates or the absence of a touch screen, almost the entire list of 'cons' in the conclusion simply disappears.

Yes Sony could develop better menus and a more cohesive system of high grade APSC lenses.

I regularly shoot high speed on my A6000. No problems with overheating. As for decreased battery capacity, I think it's only a matter of time before Sony moves to a larger battery. The current battery is tiny. But even so, it's not a big deal. I just carry an extra couple of batteries. Like I said, they are tiny. So they don't take up much room. I recently went to Dubai, India and Thailand with my A6000, shooting in extremely hot conditions with no problems.

I only have limited video experience with a Canon 60D and some budget/entry-level/aging Sony models (NEX-3N, A3000), and to me they all leave much to be desired in the video department. This led me to convincing myself that "I don't care about video." Contemplating buying the a6300 is changing all that.

In seeing the a6300's decent 1080p and glorious 4k samples, Sony is convincing me more and more that to shoot quality 1080p video, I'll need to shoot it in 4k first... for me that means a new computer (or more RAM and a new GPU at least).

Is this why people were complaining about the price of the a6300 early on - because they had to upgrade the rest of their workflow? ;)

I just hope the camera does not have that heat shutdown issue that the ones before it had. Heat sensor would shut the camera down when shooting 1080P video, even on a fast rated SD card. I would get around 20 minutes of recorded video and the camera needed to shut down and had to wait around 4-5 minutes before I can record another 10-15 minutes. This issue is well known with these small cameras. Possible remedies of a high speed card didn't work well. Sony should read forums for a change.

Then unfortunately it is useless as a serious video camera. That flaw should have been taken care of. Of all the useless bells and whistles in this camera it is easy to overlook what is needed like a headphone monitoring jack amongst other essentials. Sorry Sony perhaps on your next try.

Can the auto switch between the EVF and real screen be turned off and select manually? With the A6000, I found the auto switch some times not only annoying but also drain the battery life because the very often when I hang the camera on my neck and close to the body, the auto sensor think I am tying to use EVF and therefore would not auto shutoff. Which is doubly bad because the EVF drain battery even faster than the real screen.

Another battery draining problem with the A6000 I hope Sony fixed it is the remote control. I found out on the A6000, if I enable the remote control, it also disable the auto shutoff and just keep draining the battery.

I have a complaint about the use of the term "build quality" in reviews. The term erroneously suggests that cameras with higher "build quality" will last longer in normal use or survive drops better. In fact there is no basis to believe this without doing very specific and destructive physical and electronic stress testing of the kind that manufacturers actually do. Longevity and drop test results are not at all predictable from the use of plastic or metal in the exterior as assessed by reviewers inspection. Anyone who has done real stress and drop tests knows the surprises they deliver. What a "build quality" review says is "how much metal is in the construction vs plastic" and maybe some things even more subjective than that. But, real build quality is actually very important when buying any expensive product. Assessing it would imply a different world of testing from that actually undertaken. Its fine not do that hard test, not fine be so unscientific about "build quality".

Good points. But build quality would be more improved if the A6300 was designed to be 'weather-proofed' like the competitors. Instead, it is merely 'dust and moisture resistant.' If an A6300 shows internal damage due to water, Sony will not repair it under warranty. That is a black & white issue...pure science and logic.

Captura, I am not really addressing Sony's camera here but rather the terminology used in reviews. If a reader supposes that "better build quality" means "It will be less likely to fail in use", they would be drawing an unsupported conclusion. "Build quality" as used in the review and by users in the forums is really a "psychological appeal" category rather than anything about quality as a manufacturing quality standard would measure it, and as a buyer might erroneously suppose. (The terminology about environmental protection has its own jargon, "dust and moisture" "weather sealing" etc, but reviews generally don't pretend to opine on whether it is or is not as the manufacturer may claim.)

About the Menu system:It has lots of options so there are lots of menus.... but I find that I can get to most anything I need by using the LCD display / FN Button.Press Display until the LCD is filled with settings: [EVF Mode]Press the FN button and you now can change any of those settings on that screen. And you don't need to press the button to change that setting spinning the wheel automatically changes the highlighted setting. (fewer clicks)NOW on top of that if the LCD is in EVF MODE and you put your eye to the EVF you will see the function bar that is 100% user customizable. So in EVF LCD view you have Dozens of settings at easy visual access with out entering a menu both the large settings screen and the Function bar just by looking in the EVF or not. I learned this using the camera, the manuals are not great. Add to that 5 user memories, every button and wheel direction is customizable .. How would one make it easier for a camera that is 100% live view all the time?

For the past few weeks we've been running a series of polls to find out what you - our readers - think of the major product releases of 2016. It's time to announce the winners of the first round of voting! Read more

Man’s best friend isn’t necessarily the most cooperative portrait subject. After spending some time photographing dogs (and a few cats) awaiting adoption at a local shelter, we’ve learned some lessons and have a number of tips for better pet portraits. Read more

Latest in-depth reviews

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.